If you've been counting on being able to run Windows on those
new Intel-based Macs, Apple's not about to
make it easy for you -- at least not if you're attached to Windows XP. According to Apple SVP Phil Schiller, the new
Macs announced yesterday (those being the
Intel iMac and
MacBook Pro) may not
be able to run current versions of Windows due to the fact that the computers will boot using the Extensible Firmware
Interface (EFI), rather than a traditional BIOS (current Power PC Macs use Open Firmware). EFI was developed by Intel
and allows a number of advanced features, including the ability to connect to the Internet from a command shell before
the OS is loaded. Since EFI was developed after the rollout of Windows XP, it's not supported by the current or earlier
version of Windows (it is, however, supported by 64-bit versions, but the new Macs are 32-bit, so it's back to square
one). However, all is not lost: Windows Vista will support EFI, and Apple has said it has no plans to directly block
Windows from working on the new boxes. So, if you're a Vista beta tester and have ordered a new iMac or MacBookPro, get
those install CDs out; the rest of you will have to wait for the official Vista release, or find a way to hack XP to
boot using EFI (which we're sure is about to become a major priority of some of you at this very moment).
posted January 11th 2006 5:45PM
#13
I believe there is a version of the LILO boot loader (ELILO) available for Linux, but haven't checked into it.
#13
I believe there is a version of the LILO boot loader that supports EFI available for Linux called ELILO, but haven't checked into it.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/elilo/
Forget the mouse issue. Just get a BT 2 button mouse.
*I* would like to know... when running on this laptop, will windows recognize the Command & Option keys as Control and Alt keys in the windows world?
Also, will there be a key that can be recognized as the "Window" key? I use the Window key all the time.
If not, is there software out there that can map keys or key combinations specifically to the window key? Like instead of Window+E could some software translate Ctrl+Alt+Shift+E to the same thing (errr, command+option+shift+E)?
#17
Those previous people only got it to run by using PearPC, which is an emulator.
I don't want an emulator, I want native support.
I mean it runs natively on x86, obviously, so whats keeping it? The best I could figure is the whole EFI boot crap, I guess if they didn't intend it to be used ona system without EFI they wouldn't bother making it capable of booting from a sytem with a normal BIOS.
But the heavy lifting, i.e. porting OSX and all the untouchable by mere mortals code that comes with it, has allready been done by Apple.
I can only imagine it's just a matter of time before MS actually has some competition in the OS market.
I'm still not sure I'd USE OSX, lack of software is still killer and honestly theres alot of things about OSX I don't like. But it would be nice to have the option.
hey...
i was wondering if windows programs would work w/ the new intel macs.. if anyone knows the 100% TRUE answer tothis questoin, please email me at basketballdude76@hotmail.com
thank you so much.
-PJ
Uh...yeah...and ?
I thought the hype and hoopla around macs these days was their "awesome" and stable unix like OS (which I am in no way knocking...). So what would be the point of running Msoft stuff on a Mac ? PARTICULARLY now that they're gonna have intel guts. It will be virtually the same thing as running Vista on a plain PC but cost more...
WHY?!?!?!?
(aside of course from the ubiquitous "Because I/We can!" factor...)
Apple / Mac has been taking their sweet time improving on some things and even though OS X is the greatest OS right now on the market, they will ultimately lose against linux and vista.
Sorry Apple, but the fact is Microsoft is getting off their butt and doing something and just because you got Intel to work with your new machines it probobly wont save you.
-----
That was vague.. so.. a more agile Apple has to worry about MS catching up to .. Jaguar.. in.. Dec 2006.. and.. Apple just reported $5.7B quarter.. best ever.. and you warn that, Intel can't save them...
Dude...where do I start?
How about you list ONE THING Apple has to worry about with Vista
Virtual PC for Mac running natively without emulation would be mighty nice. I'm sure someone is working on it.
5: "i'd rather have a peg leg than use a one button mouse for windows."
I'd rather have a peg leg than use Windows.
I wonder how hard it would be for apple to make that 1 button on the MacBook Pro to work like mighty mouse, i.e. put some kinda sensor(s) underneath to determine if you wanted to do a left/right click.
Did EFI come before or after WinXP? I think the engadget post says it came after, but a reader said it came before...
Oh and wasn't there this thing called WINE that lets you run Windows programs on x86 machines with a UNIX-based OS? If that works just fine, why bother with dual booting Windows on your intel Macs?
This is a win win situation for microsoft because if someone wants to run windows on thier macbook pro (probably because of lack of qaulity gaming on macs) they would have to buy a fresh copy of vista, which means more money for microsoft.
Apple will loose money if 0SX was to run on generic pcs and laptops because they rely on hardware sales from the macs.
If OSX get hacked to run on pcs other than macs this would see a drop in mac sales because if someone had the option to have OSX to run on hardware to thier own specification other than the highly inflated prices apple charge for thier macs, they would not choose the latter.
Personally i dont see why people buy macs, if it's for perfomance then i beg to differ, for the same price you can personalise a top end pc or laptop at alienware and most people think they are a ripoff. Macs do not make economical sense, they can't ran most programs for instance which limits productivity, I would say most people by macs for the novelty and nothing else.
And yes i dont own a mac even thou i have used one before, this is mainly because i am not stupid enough to spend my money on something that has so many limitations. I must admit the intrface of OSX is appealing, but that does not justify spending £1000+ on something which has limited expandability.
OH good lord people there is soo much bickering about wanting windows on a mac and how its pointless.... What the heck? What if i want to be able to run both OS's, not just one. Why you ask? What if i want to video edit in my Mac OS, but i want to play a newly released game that is out for windows, but not mac? Or even released for it, but not optomized for it? How about all the little shareware programs we've come to know and love that are pc programs? What does it MATTER if we want both os's? Apple is in no danger allowing Windows on the mac, i doubt most people will buy the new laptop and NOT run the mac OS anyway. It's like buying a car and not using it's extra features. If you want a laptop that runs windows, then buy a dell or ibm, or asus, but for those of us that want both? Macbook is our first shot at it in a native (non virtualized) environment. That said, if they brought out the 13 inch widescreen version, i'd probably give the single mouse button a shot, but not before then.
My 2 cents.
I love the Windows fanboys arguements against OS X...one button mouse...how the hell does that work!?!
Ha Ha
Mighty Mouse has four buttons and a scroll ball for 360degrees scrolling. Apple's first attempt at a multi-button mouse and it actually works better than most third party/microsoft developed mice.
I use iscoll2 on my 1.67ghz PB to add right-click functionality by putting two fingers on the scroll pad and hitting the mouse button. "Problem" solved.
Can you imagine me using the same arguement against windows? "Like OMGZ, windows has two buttons...it must be a crap OS."
OS X, although it doesnt carry as many native apps and games (many of which I'll never use of have even heard of) as windows, offers a much better experience for the average user straight out of the box, which to many people is much more important than being able to run random bits of software.
The *other* issue is that the Intel Macs use a non-standard partition table as well as EFI; they use a GPT ("GUID Partition Table") instead of a legacy MBR. Like EFI, this is an Intel idea that's already in use on Itanium, so the Linux community should have very little trouble in porting the EFI/GPT code from IA64 to IA32 in order to let Linux dual boot on Intel-Macs.
The problem is going to be Windows; only Itanium Windows 2000/XP supports EFI/GPT, and Itanium's a completely different architecture. I suspect that VMWare/Virtual PC (when OSX-Intel versions turn up) will be the main solutions for Windows dual booting until Vista comes out, which should hopefully solve the problem.
eventhough it is half illegal, OSX can run PCs nowadays
http://osxonpc.com/
Back to the topic: Can you run Windows XP on an Intel Mac. It looks promising. It also seems that they boot using EFI. Well, the MacBook's cousin, Acer's TravelMate 8200 comes preloaded with WinXP Pro. Therefore, Intel Macs should be able to boot WinXP. Right?
Who's picked up a Intel iMac and tried installing WinXP Pro?
#39 and #49...Amen to that.
#56 - the problem with this is that you are essentially running the whole OS within a Rosetta environment. At least that's what I gather from the link.
You'll see a performance hit, and many apps that require realtime stuff, like Final Cut Pro, etc. will not run under Rosetta. So, you are running what amounts to a crippled version of OSX. It is a good start, however.
My question is how will it react to a video card or other hardware that Mac has no native support for? Or drivers that just don't behave properly when running the whole OS under Rosetta?
I would like to see the guys that hacked this do it with 10.4.4 and post results. You wouldn't have to run the whole OS under Rosetta.
I was thinking about getting a TabletPC next month. THen the MacBook came out, and for only $300 more I can get a faster CPU & run both OSX & Vista natively, wich outweighs the negative of not being able to use tablet functionality.
Now, if there were a Dual-Core TabletPC priced in the same range (or less) than the MacBook, AND it could run OSX 10.4.4 natively w/o problems (dual-booted OSX & XP), well that would just be phenominal!
Either way, I am waiting till at least the MacBooks are arriving and I can see confirmation that Vista can run flawlessly on a MacBook (can't think of any reason why it shouldn't). Hopefully by then someone will have at least attempted to run OSX on a non-macbook dual-core PC laptop. I'll make my final descision then...
The guys at thinksecret .com claim “Along with running Mac OS X, Windows XP installs without hitch on the Intel-based Mac, just as it would on any other PC”.
Link http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html
Disregard previous post... old link
Seems to me Intel's the one that should be doing the gloating, seeing as how Apple has finally given up pretending and adopted the superior technology.
"i'd rather have a peg leg than use a one button mouse for windows."
You know... sometimes I wonder if people are really that stupid.... Macs have been able to use any PC 2 (or more) button mouse since before time with full right click functionality. You will not have to use an Apple one-button mouse when you run Windows, let alone when you run OS X! Right click works just fine on a Mac in either OS!
Hitting ctrl+click (or ctrl+tap if you've got tap to click turned on) is no more difficult than clicking a separate button. The only situation I could see where it would matter is gaming, and who games with a trackpad anyway?
The Acer Travelmate 8200 IS very similar in spec, but it's the same price OR MORE according to the pricing guidelines I've seen. I'd hardly call the Mac Book Pro a "dumbed down cousin" of it. (It's also worth noting that they were developed completely independently of each other; their announcement dates were within a week of each other, so it's not like one really trumped the other, even.)
The OS bigotry on both sides is simply overwhelming. Both sides need to get over themselves: use what you like and realize that your preferences aren't the preferences of everyone else. If it successfully dual boots (which I'm banking on), awesome. If not, I bought it as a Mac, if it boots Windows (Vista or XP), that's just gravy. If you're really so concerned over whether or not it'll dual boot, then WAIT UNTIL THEY SHIP. It's all just speculation until then.
#50 and all you one-button mouse haters: You don't need two buttons--the one button will work as two. There is a great utility called "One Finger Snap" (like $10) that gives you a control panel to control how long a single click on the single mouse becomes a "right click". For example, you hit the mouse once and let go and it acts like a left click. You click and hold for .25 seconds (or whatever you define in the control panel) and it acts like the right click and you get the contextual menu usually associated with right clicks. I've been using this for a long time now and it's slick. And yes, when I plug a mouse in or use my desktop Mac, I use a two-button mouse (any USB mouse will work, you don't need a Mighty Mouse).
Connecting to Internet before the OS boots? Can you say getting rooted before you're first cup of coffee? Maybe I'm paranoid but, I don't want anything connecting to the internet that is that low level. A hacked OS can be formatted off the HD, a hacked and rooted FIRMWARE? Beware my friends. Especially if it shares the same platform as Windows anything; that means that all of a sudden, the other 99.9% of hackers who weren't interested in Apple hardware all of a sudden can clump us in to their virii target base with an all new form of horribly contagious and horribly destructive form of malware.
I bit negative, yes. I'd like to watch DVDs and Play iTunes (locally and over the network) without the OS and all of the battery drain that would come with it as much as the next man but, connecting the low levels of the machine logic with internet is just a bad idea.
You know what they do to machines that hold the highest level of government secrets? Never connect them to any outside network at all. Everything is still too unsecure. Call me paranoid but, my BIOS is like Pentagon. There shouldn't be many people coming in and out (relatively speaking) and I should know who they all are.
That said, I'm as eager to get an Intel Powerbook when they come out with the 17' model. Once you go 17, it's hard to go back... Maybe for that fabled 13' widescreen that been rumored.
"*I* would like to know... when running on this laptop, will windows recognize the Command & Option keys as Control and Alt keys in the windows world?"
Yes, Command = Windows and Option = Alt, which switches their expected positions. At least that's how it works when you plug an apple USB keyboard in to a windows box.
Some clarifications here:
1) Only a virus that had the ability to modify the partition table (or other partitions directly on the disk) would affect OS X, as Windows doesn't understand HFS, the filesystem used on OS X.
2) The mac can use multi-button and wheeled mice/trackballs. (Especially if windows was running it, as it'd just be an issue of talking to the USB port) However, I doubt windows will recognize command+click, which should be the primary concern.
3) There are a couple of utilities to make apple keyboards work on Windows, I imagine they would work here. One is called 'AppleKeys', although I don't have a link available.
4) Someone is working on a stable WINE port for OS X, although at this time I can't remember what it's called.. It's mentioned on the OS X x86 wiki.
5) As any Free UNIX user knows, you'll most likely have to install Vista first, then install OS X. Windows is notorious about it's lack of recognizing and catering to other operating systems.
I hope that helps clear some things up.
Sun machines have had network-accessible firmware for well over 10 years now.
I have come across what appears to be instructions on how to dualboot MacOSX and Windows on a PC:
http://www.profit42.com/guides.php?id=1
The most stupid thing that Apple has done is allow two buttons in the operating system but putting one button on the touchpad.
It's like having a 7 seats SUV with one door.
Three reasons why Windows won't run on Macs yet: EFI, driver support and GPT. I wrote about these problems (and solutions) at:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/Jan06.IntelMacsWin1.html
> 50
That's the most intelligent answer to the two-button malarky you windows fanboys spout about. The Mighty Mouse isn't actually a multi-button mouse, it's one button with three "zones." Having one button that has two zones would shut the fanboys up yet still let me set both zones to primary click and not worry about accidentally popping up a contextual menu when I'm typing.
Oh, and for those of you that use Photoshop, if you're not already adjusted to keyboard modifiers, you're not being a very efficient user. Shift, option, control and command, and combinations of all four make each tool in CS2 do different things. It's like having a six button mouse.
Oh, and one of the great parts about OSX is being able to have 80% functionality without even touching the mouse. Learn to use the keyboard, it's soooo much faster. Unless you're using windows. Then it's just dodgy and more confusing.
Who would want to put Windows XP on a Mac anyways, it would be a sin. XP is the worst, worn ridden, virus prone, pile of 0's and 1's I have ever seen. Case in point I gave away a four year old laptop PC to a relative running XP version 1; resurecting an old Compaq running XP from a four year hiatus reminded me how awfull XP really was. After wiping the drive with the original restore disc and pop up hell to update XP to usable standards (might I mention several update session... where is the automatic in "automatic updates!") I then had to run virus scan that pulled out spyware galore, and a few ill viruses. Lukily I'm giving the laptop away as a dial up stick in the mud to non computer users, but the thought of having that relic of a virus magnet piece of trash in my office just made me ill to the bone. By the way Windows Pro wasn't any better. Thank God I no longer need to use such awfull OS's for work. Not only did it make my job a living hell, but I had to bring hell home in the form of a laptop.
"And then there was light." So comes Apple's line of low power consuming, Intel chip, Mag connect, laptop computers. Oh glory be, I do see a light at the end of Windows hell. It comes in the form of Mac OS and Vista all in one neat little package, a new day has dawned.
#32 SAY WHAT??? Explain this?
# 49
/stand up
/clap
thank you for saying what we all have been thinking...
#51: I bet your car is a Ford Mondeo and all of your clothes are from C&A. There's a little something called industrial design which Apple happen to be very good at, and there are many people who prefer a more satisfying experience when using computer. At the risk of sounding snobbish (which I am), there are only 2 reasons NOT to buy a mac: (1) Financial reasons (2) Ignorance. Taking (1), I'd rather buy an older, 2nd hand Mac than own a PC. However, I'd say that in many cases, it's a case of 'won't' rather than 'can't', which really directs that back to (2). You suggest that people only buy Macs for 'novelty', stating that 'Macs can't run most programs'. I'd beg to differ. I work in scientific research and I'd concede that many commercial programs are written specifically for wintel boxes running bits of kit in our labs. However, OS X has the legacy software of UNIX machines which goes back decades, and a lot of OpenSource and shareware material, as well as a lot of quality commercial solutions. Often my colleagues are jealous because the OpenSource and shareware packages I use supersede the versions they have on their PCs, no doubt due to the fact that Mac owners are more likely to financially support such projects (PC owners being misers, as you proved in your earlier statement). You then go on to state that this limits productivity...
HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU ABSOLUTE F***ING MORON. Why is it that most of my colleagues, and my mates (I also do a lot of design work, writing etc.) always come to me to sort stuff out...could it be the fact that most mac versions of programs can load and save in a wider variety of formats? Yes, I believe it could.
I've never heard anything as retarded in my life. Do us all a favour and electrocute yourself on your pathetic, scrubber-machine.
#34 regurgitates the same old "measly 4%" statistic. Is this in fact, a true represetation of a mac user-base? Well, many independent websites report the proprtion of people logging on using macs somewhere around the 20% mark. This is because these people are not being restrained by limited or blocked access to the internet by the call-centres, offices and other institutions that block-buy large numbers of wintel machines. That's right, folks, the 90% or higher market share of machines running Windows is largely comprised of those that will be used by people who had the choice thrust upon them. At least the people using macs actually want them. So: large faceless multinationals buy PCs, idiots buy PCs, sheep buy PCs, people buy...Macs?
The success of the iPod reflects this as well. Most people who own iPods own PCs, and I'd hazard that most of them didn't even bother to consider the alternatives.
F***ing Nazis.
I've had a mac since 1984 but I'm a windows developer by day. Right now I need a windows machine AND a Mac and have lots of software for both. If the new intel macs would boot XP I'd have already ordered one. I need intel VPN clients and Visual Studio and certrainly VS is never likely to be running on OSX anytime soon.
Plus I have a feeling we might get more switchers to Mac if they knew they could still run their Windows programs when they needed to.
Lastly as I run XP and OSX every day, there's a lot to like about XP pro. I like OSX too, but I'd LOVE to make the dock work like the application bar on the bottom of the XP screen (to make windows not overlap it). So I'll have to wait for Vista before I buy my new Intel Mac so I can be certain it will work.